On 11/30/2016 11:25 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Joe, > > Very basically, the problem being solved is an overlay network over the > Internet for inter-site tunneling between sites that may be either fixed > or mobile.
That's the same problem solved by every tunnel, isn't it? There is nothing unique about "inter-site" tunnels - all tunnels that carry IP qualify. Endpoint mobility might be the new part, but in that case I'm not seeing how this is a new problem (vs. any other sort of endpoint mobility, e.g., use HIP, mobile IP, etc.). If that's the new part, it seems like it belongs in a mobility WG, not here.... > Is this what you are looking for, or do you want specific use cases? That is close to what I was asking, but I'm not sure I see the answer yet... Joe > > Thanks - Fred > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 10:49 AM >> To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]>; Lucy yong >> <[email protected]>; Brian E Carpenter >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some thoughts on >> draft-yong-intarea-inter-sites-over-tunnels >> >> Hi, Fred, et al., >> >> >> On 11/30/2016 9:35 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >>> How would people feel about seeing draft-templin-aerolink become an intarea >>> document? >> In one sense, every IP over X tunnel proposal could be an INTAREA doc, >> but the bigger question is "what problem is being solved" that is >> specific to INTAREA. >> >> Absent that goal statement, I'm not sure we should be adopting anything... >> >> Joe > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
